An amicus curiae in a high-profile products liability case has asked the state Supreme Court to hear its separate arguments in the case even though the justices heard from both the plaintiffs and defendant during an oral argument session more than a month ago.
The Pennsylvania Association for Justice made the unprecedented request of the high court in Tincher v. Omega Flex on Nov. 25. Through its application for relief, the PAJ argued that counsel for the plaintiffs had conflicting interests and failed to stick to the positions outlined in its appellate brief.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
